1st tiebraker: Games won (provided all games are played, no best of ...)

2nd tiebraker: CL rule!
CL had exactly this situation - 4 players per team in the final.
Rule was discussed at length and everybody liked it.
Why not use it here?

Short draft what it is (for exact specification search for CL rules):

You need 4 players per team + TD present at an agreed time.
Captains give a 1-player-lineup for first game - 1 game played.
Captains give a 1-player-lineup for 2nd game (must be a different player) - 1 game played, start for the team that didn't have start in first game.
Result 2:0? We have a winner

Result 1:1?
Captains give a 1-player-lineup for 3rd game (must be a player different from the first 2) - 1 game played.
Captains give a 1-player-lineup for 4th game (must be the 4th player ... or a different one, if you have more than 5 on your team and present) - 1 game played, start for the team that didn't have start in 3rd game.
Result 3:1? We have a winner

Result 2:2? Redo from start (all players can be nominated again)

Yes - this could theoretically last forever.
But it would be very interesting and tactically challenging.
It won't occur frequently.
It only can occur in a tournament stage, where it's very likely that all team members are present anyway (your teammate plays the last and decisive match of the NC final - are you there???), so you can probably just start it after the last "normal match" produces the perfect tie.

Onyx asked about game ties. I think a tie should count now in the final result, and both players should receive 0.5.

Why ? Matches would be too long otherwise and each player has the same number of starts. + More chances to break a 3-3 tie. If people think it is ok, i can add it to the rule without using a vote.

Ok for ties. To play 6 games means that we don't need no more difficult starting rules. Just first random and then alternate.
So play 6 games and then see the result.

Sysyphus wrote

Tie breaker
We still need a tie-breaker for the KO Round.

A single match bo7 between players selected by the two captains.

Not to be a thorn in the side, but I would like us to be clear. For the Round Robin, Possible outcomes can now be 3.5-2.5. or some other score that adds up to 6. SOUNDS GOOD AND CLEAR, and it preserves the starter factor in a good way.

But now on KO round with both Dea's post or even Qorlas' bo7 match, what would ties be considered there?
I can go for either of those ways to settle ties in KO round, although I think in dea's there needs to be a final cut-off or it could go forever.

12.8 In case of a tie (score 2-2) a. Tiebreakers are: matches won, then games won.

b. In case there is still a tie, we will use the European Soccer Champions League Penalty rules: Each captain nominates 1 player (per skype to TD). They play one game. Then they nominate next 1 player that hasn't played in the 'penalty round' yet. They play one game. To be continued until one team has a 2 points advantage.

c. First start in the Penalties is random, then alternating.

d. Ties don't count, but the starter (and the player) changes.

e. All players have to play the same amount of games, so a player can only be nominated for his 2nd game when all 4 have played 1 game.

No cut-off here, but it can't hurt to implement one (especially as NC could have that happen in QF or SF - CL only in the Final, where you keep no one waiting if you need more time).
What aboutIf there is still a tie after 12 games (captains can agree on a higher number or open end beforehand, if they like, but all games must be played in one session) game 13 decides the winner.

For 4 players teams this would mean to occupy a double slot and in doing so they would gain an advantage because in KO the larger team should play 5 players against the best 4 players of the other team.

As a tiebreaker for KO Round, I think we should leave the possibility to the teams to play a 5-match clash if they both agree to do so. In KO Round; the result of a round doesnt matter. 4-match clash or 5 match clash = up to the persons concerned.
I'm pretty sure it'd solve the problem for 80% of the clashes.

Qorlas wrote on Thu, 06 September 2012 01:48

Not sure.

For 4 players teams this would mean to occupy a double slot and in doing so they would gain an advantage because in KO the larger team should play 5 players against the best 4 players of the other team.

I think this solution is much better than a 'games won' count. This would solve the tie breaker factor, and any team (even larger ones) could put in a 2nd player twice, doing the "double slot". No reason to limit that to 4 player teams.
But I am not sure how this is any different than: if there is a 2-2 tie, each team nominates a player to play the tie-breaker match. Especially if we added the note that it could be any player for that match.

But I am not sure how this is any different than: if there is a 2-2 tie, each team nominates a player to play the tie-breaker match. Especially if we added the note that it could be any player for that match.

Differences:
*) The timing - if you nominate 5 right away you're sure to finish the round in time
*) The opponents - if the tie-braker match is nominated after there is a 2:2, you will have a match between the best players of each team.
With 5 matches originally you still have random pairings

The 5th match will not solve the problem as long as an even number of games is played in each match.

A few new ideas:

a) One extra game in one of the matches in case of 2-2 (or 2,5-2,5 in case we accept 5 players matches). This game is played at the end of the match just in case the clash ends in a tie.
a,1) The tie-break match is one random match of the clash
a.2) The tie-break match is the "first board" match. This will help let the better players play against each other.

b) In case of 2-2 (or 2,5-2,5) the first board match is worth 4 points, second board match 3 points, etc...This is quite common in chess team championships, and will ad some strategy in the line up

All this said, my opinion (and that doesn't mean CAT opinion) is:
For the final - CL tie break pointed by dea
For the rest: b) first and after a.2)

Well in KO round, bo7 would go with a 4 or 5-match clash.
In my opinion, playing 6 games makes no sense in the KO round. The winner of a match gets one point. In the Davis Cup, you get a point whether you win 6-0 6-0 or 7-6 6-7 7-6.

Arf, solutions are pretty hard to implement.
Pegaso's is coming up with good ideas again but quite complicated.

Giving point rewards would not incitate teams to play with their bench. And a 4-player team can not really use their bench or use strategy at all because they don't have depth in their bench !

Maybe slot number 4 should be the match to be played last. Players know they would have to play the tiebreaker game(s) in case of tie.

For the final, CL's idea can indeed be the standard.

About the grats/thx thing : Etiquette can't be a rule. It's not because someone is pissed and mute that he'd not shake your hand.
And doesn't necessarily mean disrespect either !

About the grats/thx thing : Etiquette can't be a rule. It's not because someone is pissed and mute that he'd not shake your hand.
And doesn't necessarily mean disrespect either !

Sure, can't be a rule.
Maybe just an addendum that sportsmanlike behaviour is really wanted?
Which is more/different than an obligatory "grats" in my eyes.
If I can choose between playing 40 (?) NC games
a) with the standard proceeding
"hf" - "u2"
"grats" - "thx"
"hf" - "u2"
"grats" - "thx"
"hf" - "u2"
"grats" - "thx"
...
b) "real" sportsmanship, as comprises
courtesy and timeliness in scheduling the playing dates
no whining
no accusations
comments and posts that "mean something" instead of "standard disclaimers"

Perhaps I demand to much, if I want a) AND b). When I meet somebody in real life, he/she hopefully behaves like b, but there was noone, who not shaked my hand or said "Good bye", "Have a nice day" or sth like that. Ask Patrice Evra, Luis Suarez and the UEFA, what they think about a), in this case handshake...

Etiquette is a silent agreement in the community.
If we then rule about "grats" "gg", some will ask for a rule about flooding in the lobby, the number of words typed during the game, about saying "hi/bye", "hf-gl/U2"...
I rarely felt disrespect in the community apart from being cheated on.
Then, when you know that the lobby can't make up for differences of cultures or personalities, and that you've learnt to know everybody's attitude, I think you have a more relaxed approach on that matter.

I like someone who has positive contributions for the community and who's reliable better than someone who only says "hi and grats".

You can't expect any player to have the "right" behavior (which is pretty subjective), but you can expect a player to adopt an appropriate behavior.

Captain may be entitled to promote the spirit and the etiquette of the NC within their team but not sure we can do more than that !
Unless we can

Each match, players plays like it is a Best of 7 Series, BUT stop after 6 games. Thus each player will get 3 starts if it goes to the end. Possible outcomes (without any ties) would be 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 3-3. Since we really only care about whether the match was a Win (1 point), Loss (0 points), or a Tie (.5 points), no need to play all 6 games if not needed. [Playing all 6 games would be a bit simpler and thus ok also, though unneccessary]

Game 1 starting player would be random, then alternate.

Teams with highest point total after RR go on to KO round.

Tie Breaker for getting into the Knockout Rounds:

1.) Games won, BUT for each match the Games won is capped at 3! This would mimic past NCs where the RR was best of 5 and thus couldn't win more than 3 games in a match. [It's not fair for a lower ranked/new to NC player to play against a top ranked player and get slaughtered 0-6 and have that weigh so heavily in the tie breaker].

2.) If still a tie, look at head to head match (if more than 2 teams skip this). If that was a tie, look at head to head games between teams. If that is a tie, then higher seeded team.

Knockout Phase: Clash between teams is 4 Matches.

When sending in the line up, captains assign an additional rank 1-4 to each player (to be used as a tie breaker) with 4 being best.

1. Multiply each player's match points (i.e. 1,.5 or 0) by their rank. Highest team point total advances.

2.) Still thinking about it. Trying to figure out how likely a tie would be in the first tie breaker rule.

Going to keep post as is, but now that I think about it, the KO tie breaker could be used for the RR also. The extra few seconds to add a rank to line ups is nothing. And calculating games won vs. multiplying match score by rank probably takes the same amount of time.

Each match, players plays like it is a Best of 7 Series, BUT stop after 6 games. Thus each player will get 3 starts if it goes to the end. Possible outcomes (without any ties) would be 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 3-3. Since we really only care about whether the match was a Win (1 point), Loss (0 points), or a Tie (.5 points), no need to play all 6 games if not needed.

Disagree
a) Because we do care about games won when it comes to tiebraker
b) Because I think the weaker player should be given 6 chances to win a game instead of only 4. When you play a clearly stronger opponent your wish may be "hope I can win at least one..." - and you can be proud and happy, if you do.
Some good players tend to lessen their concentration once they have secured a match win, so chances for the weaker player to win a game or 2 may even be higher in the last 2 games.

Game 1 starting player would be random, then alternate.

Agree

Teams with highest point total after RR go on to KO round.

sure

Tie Breaker for getting into the Knockout Rounds:

1.) Games won, BUT for each match the Games won is capped at 3! This would mimic past NCs where the RR was best of 5 and thus couldn't win more than 3 games in a match. (It's not fair for a lower ranked/new to NC player to play against a top ranked player and get slaughtered 0-6 and have that weigh so heavily in the tie breaker).

Disagree
for example let's compare 2*4 match results:
Team A: 4:3, 4:3, 4:3, 3:4 = 12 points
Team B: 4:0, 4:0, 4:0, 2:4 = 11 points
IMHO THAT is unfair towards weaker players, as the whole burden is on them - it doesn't weigh anything how convincing the wins of the good players were, all that matters is how many games the weak players won.
This is also a good example, why I consider it important to have all games played. Had player #4 of Team B been given the chance to play the 7th game, he may have achieved a 3:4 and thus the decisive extra point.

2.) If still a tie, look at head to head match (if more than 2 teams skip this). If that was a tie, look at head to head games between teams.

Agree.
More than that, I'd prefer to have head to head be the first tiebraker ahead of games won

If that is a tie, then higher seeded team.

Disagree
a) I don't like ELO to decide anything anyhow
b) If we really did that, it should be the other way round - the lower seeded team has achieved more if they managed to be as good as the higher seeded team, so they should be rewarded.

Knockout Phase: Clash between teams is 4 Matches.

When sending in the line up, captains assign an additional rank 1-4 to each player (to be used as a tie breaker) with 4 being best.

Each match, players plays like it is a Best of 7 Series, BUT stop after 6 games. Thus each player will get 3 starts if it goes to the end. Possible outcomes (without any ties) would be 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 3-3. Since we really only care about whether the match was a Win (1 point), Loss (0 points), or a Tie (.5 points), no need to play all 6 games if not needed.

Disagree
a) Because we do care about games won when it comes to tiebraker

We care, BUT we don't need all games to count as I explained - i.e. 6-0 vs. a weaker opponent is too much of an advantage in tie breakers if all games count. Of course if we went with my suggestion for Tie breakers I mention in the KO round, we don't even have to worry about games won/loss at all, which would be an improvement I think.

Quote:

b) Because I think the weaker player should be given 6 chances to win a game instead of only 4. When you play a clearly stronger opponent your wish may be "hope I can win at least one..." - and you can be proud and happy, if you do.
Some good players tend to lessen their concentration once they have secured a match win, so chances for the weaker player to win a game or 2 may even be higher in the last 2 games.

Why? In all the other NCs weaker players only got 3 chances to win a game, now they would have 4. But like I said playing all 6 games doesn't change my other suggestions, so go ahead and play 6. I only mentioned it because there are players out there that don't like long matches.

Quote:

Game 1 starting player would be random, then alternate.

Agree

Teams with highest point total after RR go on to KO round.

sure

Tie Breaker for getting into the Knockout Rounds:

1.) Games won, BUT for each match the Games won is capped at 3! This would mimic past NCs where the RR was best of 5 and thus couldn't win more than 3 games in a match. (It's not fair for a lower ranked/new to NC player to play against a top ranked player and get slaughtered 0-6 and have that weigh so heavily in the tie breaker).

Disagree
for example let's compare 2*4 match results:
Team A: 4:3, 4:3, 4:3, 3:4 = 12 points
Team B: 4:0, 4:0, 4:0, 2:4 = 11 points
IMHO THAT is unfair towards weaker players, as the whole burden is on them - it doesn't weigh anything how convincing the wins of the good players were, all that matters is how many games the weak players won.
This is also a good example, why I consider it important to have all games played. Had player #4 of Team B been given the chance to play the 7th game, he may have achieved a 3:4 and thus the decisive extra point.

I don't understand your example as Team A played 7 game matches which isn't possible in my suggestions. Or are you trying to compare 6 game matches to 7 game matches? Need to explain your example better and compare it to past NC format as that would show what will be different this year.

With my suggestion, the games played tie breaker numbers will help weaker players. Maybe we don't want this, which is fine, but it doesn't hurt them.

Quote:

2.) If still a tie, look at head to head match (if more than 2 teams skip this). If that was a tie, look at head to head games between teams.

Agree.
More than that, I'd prefer to have head to head be the first tiebraker ahead of games won

I would too, but what if 3 teams are tied for the last slot of the KO. Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, and Team C beat Team A. Then what? We go to games won next? But that can be a big mess. Don't want to type out long example to show it right now. By using it as the 2nd tie breaker there is a lot less chance of having 3 teams tied at this point.

Quote:

If that is a tie, then higher seeded team.

Disagree
a) I don't like ELO to decide anything anyhow
b) If we really did that, it should be the other way round - the lower seeded team has achieved more if they managed to be as good as the higher seeded team, so they should be rewarded.

I do not like the idea of lower seeded getting awarded for anything. That leads to tanking of scores. I agree ELO shouldn't be used for anything, but it is used for initial seeding, and unless that is changed then I don't see why it can't be used for a tie breaker that will most likely never come into play.

Quote:

Knockout Phase: Clash between teams is 4 Matches.

When sending in the line up, captains assign an additional rank 1-4 to each player (to be used as a tie breaker) with 4 being best.

1. Multiply each player's match points (i.e. 1,.5 or 0) by their rank. Highest team point total advances.

possible

But I'd prefer pegaso's suggestionFor the final - CL tie break
For the rest: b) first and after a.2)

Pegaso's suggestion is good and I used that for my idea, but I think mine is an improvement that still retains the same feel as other NCs. It doesn't require more games or matches played - which I'm sure will cause scheduling problems. And it doesn't lock in which match is the most important. Sure it would be interesting to have the best player of each team play each other (i.e. put in the #1 board slot because that's the one that counts for tie breaker), but I personally don't want a match decided this way. I want the whole team involved (in the tie breaker equation) and have it not obvious which match is the most important.

Distribute the not played games evenly, and you may get
c)
Team A: 3:3, 3:3, 3:3, 3:3 = 12 points
Team B: 5:1, 5:1, 2:4, 2:4 = 14 points

in a) and b) the weaker players of Team B were lucky to win their 2 games, before their opp has won his 4.
If locos/tickets come the other way round it may well end up as
d)
Team A: 3:3, 3:3, 3:3, 3:3 = 12 points
Team B: 4:0, 4:0, 0:4, 0:4 = 6 points

in d) my feeling says, the 2 teams did equally well, not A twice as good as B

Say, our fictitious Team B has 2 very good players, who win every match.
The other 2 don't manage to win a match.
This team is a good candidate to be involved in a tiebreaker for making it to the knockout, as they will tie all their clashes and will be exactly average in match wins.
The only important thing for this tiebreaker will be the detailled performance of the 2 lesser players (the good guys always contribute 3 points, whether they win 4:2, 4:1 or 4:0) - and on their luck to get good tickets/locos before the opp has won 4 games.

------

@head to head

Just 2 teams involved - no problem (just to be decided, if games won count in case the clash and therefore also the matches won was a tie)

3 teams, one has more points from the direct matches - no problem
3 teams perfect clash tie (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A, all same numer of matches won) - to be decided if games won (in the clashes between those 3 teams) shall decide.

its bullshit for me to say grats when u just went down to a 42 plus locos! also bullshit when u get 6 games east and opp is west.

rulling about grats will mean killing the decreasing value of a grats since many of users say grats in all games. sorry but i disagree with that.
i say it when i meant it right away. sometimes later on after analyzing the game more accurately. but please dont force someone to say grats right after the game. otherwise i would also like to rule the "fuck i was lucky sentence" that many users that really love the grats word seem to forgett.

and its not about respect, its not about good sports...i've played several sports @competitive level, still do it in futsal, and whenever i finish my game i just handshake my opps, if i think i was unluccky or referee was not at his best i refuse to say GRATS!

+1 sysy is right. you have a bunch of personalities around the lobby and i simply respect most of them, dont try to standarize all. i'm not german, austrian or american (i could add all nations here, just picked) and the way i deal with my games may reflect part of who i am.

yes i know that i'm known for not saying Grats! its false, i say it when i meant it no issue for me that some have that idea, but its an issue to rule about it.

p.s irony is saying Good Luck! i dont want my opp to be lucky maybe we can rule that also

Uppsss, u'r right, I forgot its a WORLD TOURNAMENT! In other countries or religions they eat dogs and can't understand, how we can eat pig. We have different culture groups in the world. I delete my post.

in d) my feeling says, the 2 teams did equally well, not A twice as good as B

If you don't cap the games won at 3, it is still 8 to 12 which just goes to show that games played is not a good tie breaker at all!!

Quote:

------

@head to head

Just 2 teams involved - no problem (just to be decided, if games won count in case the clash and therefore also the matches won was a tie)

If we are playing 4 matches per clash and 6 games per match, it is likely that both match points and games won is tied between the two teams. Then what's the next tie breaker? Total Games won I assume in all matches. And if that is tied?

Quote:

3 teams, one has more points from the direct matches - no problem
3 teams perfect clash tie (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A, all same numer of matches won) - to be decided if games won (in the clashes between those 3 teams) shall decide.

Still a tie? Back to the general tiebreaker rules.

If it was a choice between games won and head to head as a first tie breaker I would choose head to head as described above. But I'm going to post my other idea in seperate thread.

---------------
I didn't see anything in the rules for tie breakers in the KO phase, but I guess no possibility of ties in old system so 13.7 would now apply to RR and KO. In KO obviously no Clash Points, and if match went 2-2, then Rank Points would be the tie breaker. For the RR, only once in 3 years has it gone to a 3rd tie breaker so probably won't come into play there (though with less matches per clash maybe it will).

13.3 should have something about each player having a slot 1-4 where slot 1 of Team A plays slot 1 of Team B. But that doesn't have anything to do with this suggestion, just a clarification of how the match up already works.

Example of Rank Points (from last year's final):
(just making up Rank to show example, no idea how team captain would have assigned each rank). Also no ties (i.e. 3-3 matches), so maybe not the best example.

If games won had been tie breaker UKB would have won (in this example), but because Kostas was the Rank 4 player and he lost it hurt UKB's rank points. And just so happens that the Rank 4 went against the other Rank 4 so that was probably the deciding game.

TNT rules have NOT changed. TNTs were somewhat strict but the TD has always been flexible on the definition of a team.

1) Geoff, from Belgium, played for France some years ago for personal reasons (language, people he knew), instead of playing with a TNT.

2) Spugna, from Germany, has been playing for Italy for a second year now. He has strong ties with Italy, even if he doesn't live there.
He was allowed to play for them to help Italy to form their national team, and to allow him to play NC.

3) Maunaloa from Japan, was allowed to play for AMD 2 years in a row because he has spent part of those years working in the US.

4) Gyuri from Hungary played with AT in 2009.

5) Davedavis from Belgium was allowed to play for France in 2007.

Players like Bassie, barbarnaud, dizz, me, Dennis, maia, Mr Bean, Anabel or Stephan (not sure which would be able to do so) have had the possibility to play for 2 different countries because the rules were set like that.
Chrismmm_ could apply for TNT currently living in Grenada...

Why say that ?

Olle Boll feels like he's not allowed to play NC anymore. He wouldn't be absurd imo that he sends a pm to the TD defending its case, if Rui, as captain of Portugal expresses the wish to have him part of his team formally.

When there's an obstacle, try to find a way around (send a request to the TD), jump higher (be part of a new TNT), or stay on the wrong side of the wall.

Community is not deaf to concerns. Some posts were implying that some voices are not heard, we enforce rules too strictly...
We cant guess all the concerns beforehand, if we are not warned of a situation. Please step up, communicate and follow procedures ! Then no drama ! It aint that hard !

Hopefully you will add my KO proposal to the RR round option too. It works for both RR and KO, and then we would have a consistent rule for the entire tournament and not one for RR and one for KO and one for Finals!

And my proposal is written wrong as of right now.

The correct order of tie-breaker for KO is:

Matches Won - Rank Points - Games Won

But let me revise it to cover both RR and KO:

Clashes Won - Matches Won - Rank Points - Head to Head Match Up - Games Won.

In KO. obviously Clash and Head to Head don't apply.

(could switch Head to Head to be before Rank Points or get rid of Head to Head altogether if this proposal has a shot of getting accepted).

We had this come up in a past NC, and there might be a rule for it, but if we are changing tie breaker rules, we need to see how it is going to affect this situation.

What 2nd place Team gets the 1st round bye??

Since Group C has more teams and plays more matches/games, we run into the problem of comparing the 2nd place teams of each group.

In a previous year there was some system of not counting some teams games to even it out, or something. I don't exactly remember (something like option C below I think).

My proposal(s).

1.) Make it random. Sure this seems to suck, but the groups aren't evenly matched anyway (because ELO isn't the best measure of a teams true rank), and so how can you say which 2nd place team did the best. Using games won isn't going to do it!

2.) Compare how the 2nd place team did against the top team in their Group. If equal (i.e. they all lost, all ties, or all won), continue down the list until one of the 2nd place teams did better (i.e. check results against the 3rd place teams, then 4th place).

3.) Remove the results of the last seeded team(s) from the results to make all groups even, then compare across the groups. If the last seeded group is the 2nd ranked team, then remove the second to last seed from the results.
[for this NC that would mean remove the results of ITA from Group C unless they wind up 2nd, then remove ITY]

Since it's pretty complicated, some insight might help some of you. So I encourage any of you to post your opinion, weigh pros and cons before some board rep actually vote.

Good luck with that BIP already voted.

Just had a hard attack.

Drake AMD wrote on Mon, 17 September 2012 19:53

My proposal(s).

1.) Make it random. Sure this seems to suck, but the groups aren't evenly matched anyway (because ELO isn't the best measure of a teams true rank), and so how can you say which 2nd place team did the best. Using games won isn't going to do it!

2.) Compare how the 2nd place team did against the top team in their Group. If equal (i.e. they all lost, all ties, or all won), continue down the list until one of the 2nd place teams did better (i.e. check results against the 3rd place teams, then 4th place).

3.) Remove the results of the last seeded team(s) from the results to make all groups even, then compare across the groups. If the last seeded group is the 2nd ranked team, then remove the second to last seed from the results.
[for this NC that would mean remove the results of ITA from Group C unless they wind up 2nd, then remove ITY]

Not sure which option I like better.

In 2010, last time we played with uneven groups, we had 2 groups of 6 and 1 group of 7.
We removed the results of the match against the team who ranked last in the final standing of the Round Robin. It applied only to the group of 7.

Current rule is :13.7 Tiebreaker
To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then number of matches won, then number of games won less number of games lost, then the round robin result between the relevant teams.

As we decided to play 6 games per match (with all games played) "games won less games lost" is obsolete and can be changed to "games won".

Should we change to :

A.
13.7 Tiebreaker
To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then the number of matches won, then the number of games won, then the round robin result between the relevant teams

B.
13.7 Tiebreaker
To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then the number of matches won, then the round robin result between the relevant teams (first matches, then games won), then the number of games won overall

C.
13.7 Tiebreaker
To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then the round robin result between the relevant teams (only matches won), then the number of matches won overall, then the number of games won overall

About tiebreaker in Round Robin and the 3 proposals (see above), I'd like to point out 2 or 3 things :

- if C. wins (RR result between relevant teams is major tiebreaker), that means that we only want to decide with this sort of drama : KO between 2 teams, and then we will forget to reward enough regularity and seriousness.

- we already have drama with playoffs to see which team deserves to qualify in between two !

- if we get losing interest for matches won, and games won, we could increase the risk that some games or matches won't be played... ?
" what about 5th and 6th game, if I already lead by 4-0, I could stop and not waste my time ? ", or " what about a 4th match vs. the weekest team of my group, if my team already lead by 3-0 ? "

- after all, all teams will play vs. the same opponents in a group, so why not considering that nb of won isn't a valid tiebreaker for the standings at the end of RR.

Don't know if you can touch the idea with my basic english (sorry ) ... hope so !

And of course, RED TGV will vote for A or B (not decided yet), and those who already voted for C, still can change their choice after this remarkable demonstration

The making of the groups was pretty unfortunate this year. 3 French teams together in group B, both Italian teams in the same group too...

Since ERPS'tool is also pretty obsolete -now that we use the top 4 player-, I think we could try to renew the mode of selection, to make it funner and less predictable.

RFAD was talking about an "old Patterson proposal" in the French forum before NC.
After last week's experience, I thought this proposal was making sense and could bring something new.

1)
If 3 groups, top 3 teams in the seeding are divided up into 3 groups.
#1 in group A, #2 in group B, #3 in group C.

2) 1st round of draft :
Seed #1 then chooses a team they want in their group. I.e. : team #22

Seed #2 then picks another one among the remaining ones : Team #18 (for whatever reason).

Seed #3 picks another team, ie : team #21.

2nd round of draft :
In order to make it more random, and also more fun for the community, the team just picked would then choose their next opponent.
To preserve balance, Group C (team #21) would be first to pick in that round, then followed by B and A.

3rd round of draft :

Group A gets first pick, then group B etc...

It'd not be that hard to organize, we would just need one player of each team for the draft night.

Would solve the non-representative ELO issue, the ERPS' tool issue and the unfortunate groupings.